Saturday, December 01, 2007

Ruth(of Ruth's Report): So another week passed and public radio was pretty disappointing. NPR's excuse can be that it is middle of the road. That may excuse some aspects but it does not excuse ignoring the two biggest stories of the week. Pacifica Radio is supposed to offer left programming. So, before I get to the biggest stories ignored by both, we should probably zoom in on one program.

CounterSpin is produced by the organization FAIR which also offers the bi-monthly magazine Extra! and FAIR identifies as a left organization. Listening Friday to CounterSpin, I had to keep reminding myself of that identification. That had nothing to do with the second interview, with an attorney on the Bilal Hussein case. It did have everything to do with the first interview.

Glenn Greenwald was the interview subject and he was there, as the introduction noted, to discuss Time magazine's Joe Klein who has been caught yet again in another truth-bending episode. "Yet again" because this is a pattern with Mr. Klein. So listeners may have been confused to hear Mr. Greenwald state that he did not want to personalize it. Part of the confusion falls back on CounterSpin which decided to go with Mr. Greenwald as the person to address the topic.

CounterSpin's a left program but apparently does not feel bound to seek out left guests. That is not an insult to Mr. Greenwald. He has himself, in other interviews, noted that he does not see himself as left or right. I was confused as to why he was selected to be interviewed about this when other outlets, such as Media Matters, and many bloggers had covered this issue. There is a whole cast of interview subjects on the left. Then I remembered Steve Rendall's problems with Air America Radio which included "bloggers" as experts when Mr. Rendall doubted they were.

Mr. Greenwald is an attorney. He is not a 'lowly blogger' and that, apparently, matters more to CounterSpin than having a guest speak from the left. Considering the nonstop complaints from FAIR about the lack of left voices featured in the mainstream media, possibly they should do more to make sure left voices are featured on their own radio program?

For a half hour, they offered no left guest. When you think about their criticism of PBS' NewsHour or the cable lineups or the Sunday chat and chews, you may be remembering that FAIR regularly takes them to task for not featuring left guests.

Another criticism FAIR likes to make is that people who are center or center-right are often presented as if they were left. I will assume most listening to the latest installment of CounterSpin grasped that the AP is not left but I do think CounterSpin left listeners with the impression that Mr. Greenwald was left. Honestly, I think the hosts assumed Mr. Greenwald was left.

Is it fair to 'personalize' the issue, something the centrist Mr. Greenwald was opposed to? You bet it is. It is more than fair. In fact, for the left it is required. Joe Klein is not a reporter. His entire career is about personalization. With a guest not worried about being seen as left, CounterSpin could have explored that. We are talking journalistic ethics and, with Mr. Klein, there are a huge mountain of issues to tackle which do not begin with his lying that he was not "anonymous" who wrote Primary Colors. Mr. Klein is a serial liar offering his personal tastes as universal takes, as objective ones.

By refusing to 'personalize' it, by refusing to touch on the many similar incidents with Mr. Klein, Mr. Greenwald wanted to make it about Time magazine refusing to issue a correction. That is only one aspect of the story. Since we are not talking about Susan or Stan Smith but about Mr. Klein and his long, abusive relationship with the truth, zooming in only on Time magazine takes a very specific problem and turns it only into Time's trouble with issuing a correction.

In fact, I should add, "Time's trouble with issuing a correction in this instance." Because apparently other examples of Time refusing to issue corrections would have been 'personalizing' the issue since Mr. Greenwald offered none.

So what listeners could easily have taken away from that bad interview was that Time magazine refused to issue a correction in this one instance and that the problem was not Mr. Klein's problem because a 'left' voice vouched that it was not.

Way to waste everyone's time with a lousy segment that refused to explore anything and, in the end, was such a huge disappointment that it could have been covered more clearly in a 'look at recent press' at the top of the show.

This is not a minor issue. FAIR makes a point to issue action alerts and to conduct studies on the number of left voices presented in the mainstream media. But, for a half-hour, they offered two guests who were not left voices and there really was not much to either interview.

The Associated Press interview was cursory glances and did not do a great deal to inform anyone of Bilal. I generally refer to people by their last name but I have noticed that C.I. has repeatedly used "Bilal" and I grasp that is because the U.S. military is attempting to turn him into this monster so I will use Bilal as well. Do you know that there is a petition in support of Bilal started by journalists around the world? If you do so, you may know it from this site but CounterSpin was not interested in referencing it. A real shame since Mr. Rendall asked a ridiculous question and the answer he was hoping to elicit could have been underscored by offering the Free Bilal web address.

Mr. Rendall wanted to know about the lack of support from other press outlets for Bilal. The reality is that other press outlets have covered the story but have refused to offer editorials in support of Bilal. Journalistic organizations have offered various degrees of support, but the editorial boards have been silent. That is shameful. Does Mr. Rendall really believe that in an ongoing battle, when there is the hope that editorial support will come at some point, an attorney can respond, "You are exactly right! We are getting zilch! I am mad and and I am offended!"? Of course he cannot. This lack of support from editorial boards is appalling but if you are attempting to explain the support Bilal does have, you need to note Free Bilal.

In terms of the lack of support, C.I. can call it out and has done so. Mr. Rendall could have done the same if he wanted to note it. Instead he asked a question that no attorney hoping his client will get some last minute support from editorial boards can answer in agreement while the issue is ongoing. If Mr. Rendall did not grasp that, I do wonder how aware he is of the situation? Since CounterSpin has not really focused on this issue and since Mr. Rendall repeatedly bungled the interview, I would guess Mr. Rendall is not overly familiar with the issue.

Considering that FAIR includes supporting journalists who are "muzzled" among its stated intentions, I do find it sad that the organization which can issue an action alert this week on former President Bill Clinton lacks the time, or maybe just the interest, to issue an action alert on Bilal.

Bilal has been held by the U.S. military since April 12, 2006. He is a prisoner though the U.S. military prefers the 'softer' sounding term 'detainee.' One would assume over nineteen months of imprisonment would qualify as "muzzling" and, therefore, would require FAIR to make the time to issue, at the very least, an action alert. Is that not the purpose of a 'watchdog'?

Sidenote, added at my granddaughter Tracey's request. Tori Amos has a song entitled "Cooling" where she sings, "Peggy get a message to Jesus." At Tracey's request, "Jim get a message to Jess." That is a private message at this point, however, 2008 may find it to be a very public one at this site. As they say on KPFK's Uprising Radio, "Yeah, I said it."

So to recap, CounterSpin offered two segments and, despite decrying the lack of left voices in the media, offered zero guests from the left. If you are thinking the interviewers themselves could have injected left commentaries during the interviews, you have obviously not listened to the program. The two interviews could have been conducted by Charlie Rose for all they offered. For instance, a left interviewer could have challenged the assertion by Mr. Greenwald that Mr. Klein's serial abuse of the truth was not worth 'personalizing.' But, of course, that did not happen. When you self-present as a left watchdog and you regularly castigate the mainstream media for failure to present left voices, possibly it is not a good idea to waste an entire week's program without offering a left voice?

It is probably not a good idea for left radio programs or NPR radio programs to not address two very serious issues. First up there is the much hyped "Great Return" of Iraqi refugees, which C.I. has pointed out for weeks, is from Syria which refuses to match the efforts Jordan provides in schooling to the refugee children and which has not only has instituted a policy that translates as no new visas but has also begun cancelling the visas of a large number of refugees who have attempted to start over in Syria. When your children cannot go to school, when you cannot get work, when your visa is cancelled, it is not a surprise that you might consider returning to Iraq. While FAIR, in all its formations, has remained silent, C.I. has called it out and has called out the ever shifting numbers being provided by the U.S. military and the Iraqi puppet government and C.I. has repeatedly noted that relief agencies have called out the numbers. Two Thursdays ago, C.I. noted that the trickle of returnees were resulting from the fact that the Iraqi government was both busing them in from Syria and bribing them to return.

When you consider that the lies of the "Great Return" work both domestically (lulling U.S. news consumers into the belief that Iraq is now 'safe') and internationally (lulling refugees into believing they need to consider returning), it is appalling that independent media has refused to call the lies out. Possibly, common sense is in short supply among out left voices. If so, they could have hid behind the paper of record to begin telling some truths about the myth of the "Great Return" this week. Monday, Damien Cave's "Pressure for Results: The Politics of Tallying the Number of Iraqis Who Return Home" (New York Times) which noted not only the bribes being offered to returnees, not only the fact that they were bused in, but also that the Iraqi government "continued to publicize figures that exaggerate the movement back to Iraq".

"Culpable" is the term C.I. used yesterday and I would argue anyone wasting all of our time with a lengthy segment allegedly devoted to Joe Klein's lies with a guest who refuses to call them that and insists we must not 'personalize' the issue is being culpable in the deaths of Iraqis.The same Friday CounterSpin wasted everyone's time, even Michael Gordon could offer a tiny sliver of truth. Paired with the paper's Stephen Farrell for "Iraq Lacks Plan on the Return of Refugees, Military Says," he co-penned this tidbit: "After the lengthy journey, the tired Iraqis were ushered into the white marble affluence of the Mansour Melia Hotel in Baghdad to receive a promised government payout to people returning to the capital." But instead of exploring issues that have life or death consequences, CounterSpin offered a look at Joe Klein's journalistic malpractice that quickly devolved into a guest insisting we should not 'personalize' it. Who was served by that nonsense?

I have actually been ignoring CounterSpin because I have found them so disappointing for months now; however, they tape their show on Thursdays and, as Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot" noted, the big news should have been the then just released report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism's survey of over one hundred mainstream reporters who cover Iraq. The report is entitled [PDF format warning] "Journalists in Iraq: A survey of reporters on the front lines" and contains a treasure trove of findings that go to mainstream coverage of Iraq. As program after program avoided the report on Wednesday and Thursday, I thought, "Well surely CounterSpin has to cover this on Friday." I thought wrong. Somehow the revelations that most reporters are not even speaking to the Iraqis they quote in reports, that their bosses are not interested in their filing reports on the ongoing violence was not worthy of attention from CounterSpin. For that matter, it was not worthy of attention from other programs as well.

As the myth of 'safe' gets increasingly attached to Iraq, the illegal war lasts even longer and apparently public radio, be it Pacifica or NPR, does not see it as their role to provide the truth. If bosses are conveying their lack of interest in coverage of violence to mainstream reporters, does that not go to the lack of coverage we are seeing in the mainstream? Yes, it does. If reporters are appearing on various shows claiming things have improved but they still cannot speak to Iraqis to gather the quotes for their stories, does that not need to be noted?

It does need to be noted. If FAIR truly sees itself as a watchdog for the left, if it truly feels that not enough left voices are presented to the public, it has one half-hour each week to improve the situation. When it fails to do so, it becomes increasingly difficult to take seriously their action alerts and studies. Despite the realities of Iraq and the rare brave reporting by people such as IPS' Ali al-Fadhily, the lies of 'safe' have so entered the dialogue that even left voices now repeat them. I do hold independent media responsible for that and you should as well.

It's hard to ever insult Michael Gordon of the New York Times as much as he insults readers' intelligence; however, today he's parading exactly why he is such a lousy 'reporter' on A7. "A Fuller Picture: U.S. Looks to Iraqi Deaths" sums up Gordo's 'reporting' priorities in one sentence:

Still, Iraqi reports may give American commanders more information to help them fight the insurgency.

Yes, that is the most pressing issue for a reporter. Whether or not (limited) data compiled upon deaths and violence can . . . help a military. Not whether or not it could inform people around the world as to the rates of death and violence in Iraq, but can it help a military fight a group of people.

Judith Miller's gone but her former writing partner continues to do his damage.

Turkey's army has entered northern Iraq and launched attacks on Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) fighters, the Turkish army has said.The military said on Saturday that it used artillery and air strikes on a group of between 50 and 60 Kurdish fighters inside Iraqi territory, southeast of the Turkish town of Cukurca in Hakkari province."As part of intelligence work, a group of 50-60 PKK terrorist group was spotted inside Iraq's borders," the army said on its website."An intense intervention was made on the group and it was detected that the terrorist group had suffered heavy casualties."

Remember when the press didn't just lose interest in the tensions but told everyone was 'resolved.' 100,000 Turkish troops remained on the border but apparently that signified nothing. As did US military generals rushing to Turkey for talks all month.

Apparently there are ticking time bombs on every block, in every town across the country. Bar fights, traffic stops and other ordinary forms of disruptive behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked. Time is wasting and someone has to be tortured quickly if we are all to be kept safe.The proto-fascist direction of the nation is now enveloping people who never saw themselves as the targets of state terror, that is to say, white people. Black people were always victims of police brutality. White people either approved or may have even felt sorry for Negroes but just didn't care enough. They didn't think the same treatment would ever be meted out to them.Now thanks to video cameras and You Tube, everyone is now a witness to the trickle down movement of police brutality. If the president and vice president and Congress determine that torture is acceptable for some, inevitably it becomes acceptable for all. The argument being made by presidential candidates and law professors is that torture is fine as long as the circumstances are right. Like script writers for bad movies they all envision a "ticking time bomb" scenario. The bomb ticks, a terrorism suspect is nabbed, and voila, we have ways of making him talk. While Arabs and Muslims are the targets of the movie fantasy moment, the jack boot of the state does not isolate itself, but instead makes victims of anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Friday, November 30, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a mass kidnapping is reported, the peace movement is not election central (get the message out), and more.

Last Saturday, Lawrence Hill (Ottawa Citizen) reminded (1) "the Anglo-American attack on Iraq in 2003 was an offensive -- not a retaliatory -- strike. The war had no approval from the UN Security Council, and for this reason Canada's prime minister of the day, Jean Chretien, refused to support it. In 2004, then-UN secretary general Kofi Annan declared explicilty that the U.S.-led war on Iraq was illegal" and (2) "according to official UN policy, soldiers who are likely to be punished for having deserted military action 'condemned by the international legal community as contrary to rules of human conduct' should be eligible for refugee status." Hill is co-author with Joshua Key of the book The Deserter's Tale and the refusal of Canada's Supreme Court to hear the appeals of US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey makes it necessary to review those basics. Nikolai Lanine (Rabble News) observes, "We did betray them, after all. As a veteran of an illegal war, I feared Canada would do this. But I'd hoped otherwise." Lanine goes on to note that it wasn't just US war resisters during Vietnam being granted asylum, "November 26, 1986, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario welcomed five Soviet war objectors from Afghanistan. The Assembly described them as 'heroic individuals' and 'conscientious objectors in refusing to be partners in crime.'"

Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):

In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.

Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6

If you are in Canada, you can utilize the contact info at War Resisters Support Campaign to let members of the Canadian Parliament know you support legislation allowing war resisters to stay in Canada. If you are in the United States (or elsewhere), you can utilize the contact info and/or forum at Courage to Resist. Public outcry didn't stop the illegal war from starting and public opposition has yet to end it. War resisters in Canada who have gone public are putting a great deal on the line. Use the links to show your support for them.

The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.

Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.

Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

"The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it. That's left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like," declares IVAW's Liam Madden to Aaron Glantz in Glantz' report on the upcoming Winter Soldiers Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation (OneWorld). Madden is correct and only more so this week as a result of Project for Excellence in Journalism's report (PDF format here, our summary Wendesday here). This survey of 111 US journalists (mainstream media) who have covered Iraq found that "they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the sitatuion over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq." The report also found that 63% of the respondents stated "that Iraqi staffers do all or most of the street reporting outside the Green Zone." Madden tells Glantz, "This is our generation getting to tell history to ensure that the actual history gets told -- that it's not a sugar-coated, diluted version of what actually happened."

Turning to Iraq. Yesterday's snapshot included this: "Reuters reports 2 car bombs were found ('and detonated') 'in the Baghdad office complex of the leader of the country's main Sunni Arab bloc' -- Adnan al-Dulaimi." Waleed Ibrahim and Alaa Shahine (Reuters) reported this morning on the arrests of "dozens of people, including the son of a leading Sunni Arab politicians" with 7 arrested at al-Dulaimi's office Thursday and 29 arrested at Dualaimi's home Friday morning (Mekki Adnan al-Dulaimi was arrested at his father's home with the twenty-eight others). Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that, in the house arrests, "Iraqi security forces surrounded the house, a move the U.S. said was for the elder al-Dulaimi's personal safety. Al-Dulaimi complained that he was under virtual house arrest" and quotes the Sunni politician declaring, "I will wait until Saturday morning and if the ban of my family continues, then I will consider the government's measure as a house arrest." BBC notes that Adnan al-Dulaimi states that car with the bomb "was not in the compound" and quotes Crispin Thorold who contributes that the incident will likely "increase tensions between the main Sunni Arab political bloc and supporters of the Shia Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki." Gee, you think? And al-Dulaimi is thought to have organized the minister walk out in August (walking out of al-Maliki's cabinet). Think that doesn't matter? Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports today that there have been "17 ministries vacant for months." Rubin also notes the Thursday boycott in the Iraq Parliament over al-Maliki attempting to appoint ministers without input and to alter the Constitutional rules regarding the need for a quorum as well as the puzzler re: the arrests: "It is hard to understand why Mr. Dulaimi's guards might want to kill fellow Sunnis in the Awakening Council" and quotes an unnamed military official who declares "that it was impossible to rule out that an enemy of Mr. Dulaimi might have been trying to frame him." CNN reports "Slowing death rate in Iraq encourages Pentagon." Maybe that's why the Pentagon's been doing Multi-National Force's job. In the last few days, MNF has announced only one death. MNF's job is to announce the dead. The Defense Department puts names to them publicly after the families have been informed. Allen C. Roberts and John J. Tobiason deaths received no announcement from MNF.

Something that received lots of announcements was the mythic "Great Return." Michael Gordon and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) report: "As if to underscore Mr. Maliki's point, 375 Iraqi refugees arrived Thursday in a convoy of buses from Damascus, Syria, escorted by heavily armed policemen. After the lengthy journey, the tired Iraqis were ushered into the white marble affluence of the Mansour Melia Hotel in Baghdad to receive a promised government payout to people returning to the capital."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack left two people wounded and Hibhib mortar attack claimed 3 lives and left two people wounded while yesterday a car bombing in Al Shirqat claimed the lives of 4 police officer. Reuters notes a bomber in Dhuluwiya killed himself and 1 Iraqi police captin while wounded two more police officers and a mortar attack outside Kirkuk that left two children injured.

Okay, we're throwing in programming here. RadioNation with Laura Flanders is a new broadcast and features US House Rep and 2008 Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinch. Kucinich and not, as I wrongly stated earlier in the week, the legal panel. (Those wanting to hear the legal panel can go to the Flanders archives.) In addition, Australia's election will be covered (John Howard out, Kevin Rudd in), Sue Dinsdale and Ari Berman will talk about the Iowa primaries in terms of the illegal war, Parvez Sharma (director of the documentary film A Jihad for Love) and Rev. Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping explaining the "Christmas Shopocalypse." Laura Flanders' program airs Sundays from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm EST over the airwaves on Air America Radio, on XM satellite radio and streams online. That's radio on Sunday. Tonight (Friday), PBS' Bill Moyers Journal begins airing their latest installment which will explore the Middle East and featuring Ron Sider and M.J. Rosenberg as guests with a report about Christians United for Israel. Remember that the program's website includes a blog and you can leave comments and questions there. In most markets, Bill Moyers Journal will be airing tonight; however, some markets have started their pledge drive and the show may be interrupted or rescheduled. In addition to checking your local TV listings, you can remember that Bill Moyers Journal shares with Democracy Now! the fact that it is online and it is watch, listen or read. Welcoming to all. And with the number of wounded returning from Iraq, you'd think more programs would elect to go with that option. That has happened but the Journal and DN! are accessible to all. Lastly, David Bacon's "What a Vote for Free Trade Means" (San Francisco Chronicle) details the realities that it's not just Iraq on which the shift in power in Congress (from Republican to Democratic control) hasn't produced the needed results. Bacon's not just one of the last reporters in the country covering the labor beat, he also takes news photographs that are actually art and you can see some of his photos addressing immigration by clicking here.

Turning to US politics. Tom Hayden has an article [Warning] at The Nation. What's the point of it? 527s aren't independent and let's not lie and pretend they are. Although he's realized that Barack Obama's New York Times chat was more revealing in transcript than write up, he's still creating false lines between Hillary Clinton and Obama that portray Obama in a flattering light. (For reality in the comparison, see Paul Krugman in this morning's New York Times via Truthout.) He places a lot of faith in MoveOn. We usually call them "WalkOn" here but, to their credit, they didn't back down even when condemned by some in the Senate. Maybe MoveOn has a spine? It's more than possible and, if so, good for them. But MoveOn appears in this sentence explaining where the peace movement can focus in the fall of 2008: "House and Senate races. It is perhaps here that groups like MoveOn and Progressive Democrats of America can have the greatest effect, by bolstering the numbers of antiwar senators and representatives who favor terminating the war in 2009. Think: Senator Al Franken."

Now Greens will be offended by the article and many Dems and many others and if that needs to be addressed, I'll carry it over to a column in a community newsletter. Let's instead focus (and this will go to a larger point) on one aspect of that. "Senator Al Franken" who apparently favors "terminating the war in 2009." Franken was pro-illegal war before it started, pro-illegal war while hosting his hideous radio show on Air America Radio and only recently came out against the illegal war. In that kind-of manner he's famous for (give five minutes in a speech to sobs over veterans care and then, having hidden behind that, do a quick line about how you oppose the illegal war, then move quickly on). What the hell is Al Franken doing in that column?

Al Franken DOES NOT CALL for an end to the illegal war in 2009. That's from his campaign staff who steered me to this page at Al Franken's website. "Immediately beginning the process of bringing the troops home. Our withdrawal should not be precipitous . . ." Click on the link to read in full (that link provided only because I'm friends with the person who steered me to it.) So that's wrong. Al Franken's remarks are no different than Hillary Clinton's -- whom Tom Hayden calls out (while glossing over Obama's flaws). So that's wrong. How wrong is it for Tom Hayden to ignore an ongoing race? Al Franken is not the nominee for the US Senate by the Democratic Party. He is someone running for the nomination. Jack Nelson-Pallymeyer is whom students on campuses are excited about in that state -- students wanting to end the illegal war. Nelson-Pallmeyer is calling for an end to the illegal war. The sort of end that Hayden himself favors. So the question here is if we don't support the candidates who believe as we do, what kind of people are we? I'm not calling Tom a hypocrite. I am saying he doesn't know the Minnesota race and, as someone who struggled in his original races (both the losing one and the first victory), I am surprised that he's calling a "win" in a primary that won't be 'closed' (short of other candidates dropping out*) until "The Tuesday of Destiny" (February 5, 2008). That same sort of declaration/awarding can be found in: "Voting for Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel is a legitimate choice but not a nominee." Your choice is legitimate, Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel supporters; however, get with the program. I remember damn well the negative circulars put out by Tunney's campaign. I'm guessing someone has forgotten those days. But in 1976, Hayden's opponent didn't think Hayden made for "a nominee." So it's really surprising to see someone who's been through it himself attempt to call an ongoing race. *Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is not the only other person running for the nomination. I'm mentioning him because Minneapolis students are passionate on the need to elect him. Repeated trips to that state have revealed an enthusiasm for him that is not in place for Franken. He may or may not win the race. But there's really no reason for The Nation to be promoting an open race as if there's only one candidate.

And that's the problem with the article. It's most obvious with regards to the Senate race. But it's there in terms of the presidency. Here's a thought for the peace movement (Hayden is a part of the peace movement), how about we stop wasting our time on elections? How about we start using that time to instead talk about ending the illegal war? (There's a second aspect to that but it's a piece this Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review.) Tom Hayden honestly wants to end the illegal war. That's not a pose with him, it's not a con, he truly wants to end the illegal war and wants that deeper in his soul than many other people. But here's why all this election talk is seen as nonsense by many students in today's peace movement: It starts with "Vote for whomever but we're only covering the front runners." Then it becomes "Use your voice however you want but that's not really a worthy nominee." And now it's to the point that a state race, not a national one, is being called when the state won't be holding its primary until February 5, 2008. At what point does it end? Will it filter down to municipal races? And if state candidates who support everything that is in Hayden's latest book (Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer does) aren't even noted while their opponent is not only noted but is misrepresented in the article (in a favorable light), what does that really say about the state of the peace movement?

I'm not endorsing Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer or anyone (other than Cindy Sheehan) but it is troublesome that the author of 2001's School of Assassins: Guns, Greed and Globalization can't get a 'shout out' or a 'hey-hey' from the very people who believe in the same global issues. And, here's the thing to pay attention to, young people in that state are working very hard on his campaign. The same way Hayden worked on the campaigns of others long before he ran for office. They believe in Nelson-Pallmeyer and I'd love to hear the explanation from Hayden to them on how their candidate -- who truly wants to end the illegal war -- isn't worth noting in a magazine article? If older members of the peace movement want to be helpful, there are ways to be helpful. Telling people how to vote or ignoring their candidates isn't a way to be helpful and Tom Hayden knows many 'olders' hit the dirt in his day over this very issue. Hayden's 1976 run did make a difference. The same way, regardless of outcomes, other runs today will. Students don't need or want "voters' guides." They did want leadership and it hasn't been provided repeatedly which is why they've become their own leaders. In terms of others running in races right now . . . Hayden was a wonderful state assembly person and would have been a wonderful US senator (would still be a wonderful one). As a former candidate, he should grasp how harmful it is when you are the candidate speaking to the issues and others are actively working to highlight another candidate who is not addressing the issues.

In Yes! magazine, Aimee Allison and David Solnit address the things needed to build a stronger movement and shoring up Barack Obama doesn't take place once nor do they feel the need to predict primary winners. In an amazing article, the authors conclude, "The courage of young people in the military, on campuses and in the streets is showing us how to assert our people power. It's clear that more and more folks in the United States and around the world have the courage to resist. Can we find what lies at the root of the word courage-le coeur, or heart-to assert our power as communities, as movements, and as people to reverse the policies of empire and build a better world?" That really gets to the heart of what's needed in the peace movement today -- what's already there but needs to be amplified. Allison and Solnit are the authors of Army Of None -- a practical and inspiring book that addresses what's being done, what can be done and where we can all dream a little further.

Finally, returning to the topic of Dia al-Kawwaz (noted yesterday). Mohammed al Dulaimy, Jenan Hussein and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "Kawazz charged Friday that he'd been misled by Sadiq -- who first debunked his story -- in order to discredit him as a journalist." Sadiq is his brother-in-law Haider Sadiq. Someone lied to him -- that's not sarcasm. The Association to Defend Iraqi Journalist's rights' Ibrahim Saraj stated "Relatives confirmed the incident to me; Dhia confirmed it to me." He is conducting an investigation.

We did betray them, after all. As a veteran of an illegal war, I feared that Canada would do this. But I'd hoped otherwise.On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected bids for asylum from two American war resisters, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. When deported to the U.S., they both will face up to five years in prison and ongoing persecution. And this case will likely open the floodgates for deportation of other American war resisters from Canada.This, despite that fact that the UN Secretary-General explicitly declared the U.S. war in Iraq to be illegal under the UN Charter, and despite the fact that the Canadian government refused to participate in that invasion in the first place. And at the time, 79% of Canadians agreed with this decision.Today, I feel for Hinzman and Hughey, and I'm sad for my adopted home of Canada. I am a former Soviet soldier who served in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and I know first hand how hard it is to walk away from a war, because one faces prison, frightening uncertainty, and social condemnation.Unlike today's American resisters, I didn't have enough wisdom or courage to openly refuse deployment to an illegal war. Many didn't. Some Soviet draftees to the Afghan war I knew tried to make themselves sick, and they got out. The less lucky ones turned to self-mutilation as a last resort: a soldier in my training camp chopped off his "trigger" finger with an axe shortly before deployment. Another one, after arriving to Afghanistan, wanted out but had no way of doing it legally. He shot himself and nearly died while bleeding in my hands.Are these the options we are now leaving American war resisters with?It wasn't always this way in Canada. During the 1960s and 70s, Canada became home for 50 000 American war resisters who did not want to participate in the illegal U.S. aggression in Vietnam. This, among other things, contributed to a genuine respect for Canada around the world, including in the former USSR. Indeed, back then, many of us Soviet soldiers had heard about those American war objectors finding refuge by escaping north, and some longed for their own Canada nearby.Unfortunately, now, it seems, American resisters are losing their Canada, too.What has changed? After the Vietnam War, the Canadian government changed our immigration laws, which now prevent any American war resisters from claiming refugee status in Canada. Very few Canadians are aware of that fact, but it's what has allowed current Immigration Minister Diane Finley to tell Hinzman and Hughey to "respect our laws and leave Canada."How ironic, then, to reflect that on November 26, 1986, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario welcomed five Soviet war objectors from Afghanistan. The Assembly described them as "heroic individuals" and "conscientious objectors in refusing to be partners in crime." The soldiers were given asylum in Canada, and they were praised for refusing "to be part and parcel of a butchering machine …occupying Afghanistan" (Transcript of Debates). Ontario's MPPs "gave them a standing ovation" (The Globe and Mail, November 27, 1986).

The above is from Nikolai Lanine's "War resisters face potential deportation" (Rabble News) and Vic noted it. "We did betray them, after all." And don't just point to the Canadian Supreme Court for refusing to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. The betrayals include the lack of attention the two have received, the lack of attention the ones who went public this year received (didn't receive, more to the point) and the general desire to gas bag on any topic other than the illegal war. They took stands and they were betrayed. They were betrayed by organizations and by media outlets that supposedly care about ending the illegal war so don't just point the finger at the Supreme Court in Canada which shirked its responsibility because in the United States there's been a ton of shirking going on as well. That's not disagreeing with Lanine's statements, that's expanding them to make it very clear that it's not just what happened in Canada. The US government started an illegal war but that appears to sail right over the heads of many in the US who think there are so many more 'pressing' topics to discuss. Maybe that topic is 'ending the next war!' which is beyond stupid because anyone old enough to know better knows that the US involvement in Vietnam, when it finally ended, did a lot to hold in check other overt illegal wars. Translation, want to end the next war before it begins? End the illegal war that's going on right now.

Iraqi security forces arrested dozens of people, including the son of a leading Sunni Arab politician, in a pre-dawn raid on Friday after a car rigged with explosives was found near the lawmaker's office.The incident threatened to increase political tension across Iraq's sectarian divide at a time when violence has been falling dramatically in the country.The Shi'ite-led government said Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Accordance Front, the main Sunni Arab bloc, could be stripped of the immunity from prosecution he holds as a member of parliament if he was found to have links to car bombs.

[. . .]

Seven people were arrested on Thursday at Dulaimi's office and 29, including Dulaimi's son Mekki, were seized in a raid early on Friday at Dulaimi's house, said Brigadier General Qassim Moussawi, security spokesman for Baghdad.

Arrests aren't guilt but that's where the situation currently stands.

Brian De Palma's Redacted is playing in selected cities and Texas community members, hold on for after the list. Here's a list of where it is playing, where's it's opening and where it's still scheduled to open.

Over the next year, the United States will negotiate the military, political and economic terms of the "enduring" relationship with Iraq that was always intended to follow the invasion of the country.We need not dwell on the unequal status of the American and Iraqi participants in this negotiation, with 160,000 American troops in Iraq and Prime Minister al-Maliki unable, as he put it last year, to "move even a battalion without American consent." We may assume that the agreement will ratify the permanent presence of American armed forces in Iraq and grant preferential treatment to U.S. investments in the country. But we might ask, just once more, why the U.S. did all this.There were no terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, nor had there been any contact between Saddam Hussein and the plotters of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. There were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, either. Indeed, a number of former American officials have confirmed that the invasion of Iraq was high on the Bush administration's agenda from the moment it took office, eight months before 9/11. But there is no consensus on why it wanted to invade Iraq.As a rule of thumb, it's best to assume that U.S. leaders are guided by strategic rather than personal considerations. It is also wise to be suspicious of the simpler oil-related explanations: Saddam Hussein lacked the standing to lead the other oil-exporting states in a switch from the dollar to the euro, for example, even if he was toying with such an idea.There is no need to invade countries in order to get oil from them. There could, however, be a requirement for large, permanent American military bases somewhere in the Gulf if the goal was to be able to stop oil from the region from reaching some other country. Which country?The only challenger to America's status as sole superpower is China, and the Bush administration has spent the last seven years in tireless pursuit of alliances or less formal military arrangements with countries all around China's borders. ("Containment," they call it.) China is heavily dependent on imported oil, and the bulk of its imports come from the Gulf. An American hand on China's oil tap could be a major strategic asset.Maybe that's what Iraq was about.

Lucy notes the above from Gwynne Dyer's "The U.S. in Iraq: An 'enduring' relationship that isn't" (Salt Lake Tribune) and let's grab one sentence to pay attention to before we move over to the New York Times: "We need not dwell on the unequal status of the American and Iraqi participants in this negotiation, with 160,000 American troops in Iraq and Prime Minister al-Maliki unable, as he put it last year, to 'move even a battalion without American consent'." With that in mind, Michael Gordon and Stephen Farrell provide "Iraq Lacks Plan on the Return of Refugees, Military Says" which is full of missed opportunities (and since Gordo's involved, missed by choice) to offer reality. Gordo and Farrell can't challenge the myth of the great return, they can't do much more than take down dictation. As the myth of the great return was utilized to generate hours of happy talk, none of the happy talkers stopped to wonder what was being returned to. We're not happy talkers but when these huge, inflated numbers were being reported as fact, we did note that the houses weren't standing empty. When you've got a message taped to your door to get out (if you're lucky, you just got a message taped to your door) and you do, your house doesn't stand empty.

So now the US military makes the point and so you know Gordo's happy to jot down that there's no plan for the small number that has returned. Col. William Rapp declares, "All these guys coming back are probably going to find somebody else living in their house." Well, Rapp, it's not just "guys" that made up the trickle of bused and bought and brought back from Syria. It's nice that your sexism is on display for all to see while you supposedly represent the United States, but remember the statement to focus on above? Who's in charge here? The US. People are returning -- not the huge number that keeps getting tossed around -- and what are they returning to?

Culpable's the word. And putting the con artist Ahmad Chalabi in charge of "developing a plan to provide services" only makes the US more so. Bused and bought and that's been known for some time. Where's independent media? (Again, we're speaking of programs and magazines when we ask that question here.) Gordo and Farrell toss out, as an aside, this important information:

As if to underscore Mr. Maliki's point, 375 Iraqi refugees arrived Thursday in a convoy of buses from Damascus, Syria, escorted by heavily armed policemen. After the lengthy journey, the tired Iraqis were ushered into the white marble affluence of the Mansour Melia Hotel in Baghdad to receive a promised government payout to people returning to the capital.

The promised payout. While Iraqi children in Jordan are in schools now that wasn't the case for a large number of refugees who went to Syria. And the US military and the media sold the lie of 'safety' and they preyed on the weakest (who were already seeing the Syrian government cancel their visas). The 45,000 returnees in one month was a lie. But a trickle does exist. And they are being taken into a dangerous country, they are being bribed, lied to and bused in.

Now some War Hawks try to mask their lust for continued illegal war and claim that the US must stay in Iraq because what would happen if the US left! The great unknown. But notice those same pretending concern aren't raising the issue that the US is in Iraq, that the US is benefitting from the lies of Operation Happy Talk and that Iraqis who went to Syria have been lured back with money, false reporting and false promises, back to where a number of them will die. Culpable.

The United Nations has strongly warned against urging Iraqi refugees to return but the UN is not in control on the ground in Iraq. The US military is.

Though historically Iraq has not seen a "blood bath" when foreign invaders have finally left, the "bloodbath" imagery is used to prolong an illegal war. But notice that as a potential bloodbath is being created the same pretending to be so concerned about the fate of Iraqis don't raise an objection.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

It's pretty hard finding the perfect gift sometimes—maybe we can help. In return, your donation will help fund our work supporting the troops who refuse to fight. Listed donations include all shipping, handling, and taxes. All apparel is U.S. made, "sweatshop free" and union printed. We'll make sure to ship items within a couple of days so that you have your gifts in plenty of time for the holidays. 1. Courage to Resist HoodieHeavy weight and warm. Sizes small to XXL. (view) $502. "Peace-star" CapNot sure what size hoodie or shirt to get? These are adjustable, sueded, and cool. (view) $253. Courage to Resist ShirtAvailable in basic and women's fitted styles, from extra small to 3XL. (view) $254. Army of None BookStrategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World by Courage to Resist organizer David Solnit and Gulf War objector Aimee Allison. $205. Sir! No Sir! DVDNew Special Director's Edition with over 100 min. of new bonus material! $306. Breaking Ranks DVDNew doc about four U.S. soldiers seeking sanctuary in Canada. If your thinking about using this for a house party, check out our "Dear Canada" organizer box. $307. The Sutras of Abu Ghraib Book Notes from a conscientious objector in Iraq (hardcover) by Aidan Delgado. Democracy Now's Amy Goodman notes, "His description of how he was transformed by the horrors of Iraq is unforgettable." $258. Arlington West DVDDocumentary features 101 interviews, with soldiers and Marines en route to and returning from the war in Iraq, plus military families, and more. $209. Road from Ar Ramadi Book:The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejía (hardcover). The NY Times' Bob Herbert notes, "The issues [Mejía] has raised deserve a close reading by the nation as a whole." $2510. Make a Donation as a Gift Not sure what to get? Consider giving a gift donation on behalf of a like-minded special someone. We'll be happy to send them a card letting them know of your generosity. Just include the gift recipient's name and address in the "Comments & Notes" field.

The above is from Courage to Resist and Mike noted it (he'll be running it at his site tomorrow but only saw it after he posted tonight.). If you have gifts to buy, the list above provides you with a number of choices. You won't have to battle in line at a store. If you're not comfortable ordering online or if you are someone who needs to do check or money order, the physical address is Courage to Resist, 484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland, CA 94610. If you're thinking about it and decide, a few days on down the line, "I will order something" you don't have to remember this entry. Their website has a link for ordering items (I believe it's called "store") and it will also include the physical address for anyone who would rather utilize the mail system.

If you have a gift or gifts to buy, note that your purchase (or donation -- step 10) is helping an organization that hasn't stood on the sidelines waiting to do what might be popular, or an organization that's afraid to use the term "war resisters." Courage to Resist has been working very hard to get the truth out and to support war resisters. If there's a war resister that's gone public this year, you should be able to find out about them at the website. They cover war resisters when so many just ignore. If you don't have the money, you don't have it and there's no reason to feel guilty. But if you do, please consider Courage to Resist. I don't wear "hoodies" (I'm way too old -- or think I am, you may be older and able to carry it off) but Jessand Jim both have Courage to Resist hoodies and we all have the baseball caps. No complaints on either item. They're made with quality and hold up. The books we've noted in book discussions and are all recommended. I don't know if we've done anything on the Ground Truth but it is a strong documentary and the Arlington West DVD is also very strong. (We've praised Sir! No Sir! repeatedly -- so that should be a known at this point.) Most of all, the organization is dedicated to ending the illegal war and how many can you say that about these days?

They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3874. Tonight? 3880 with 36 for the month announced thus far. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stood at 1,118,625. Tonight? 1,122,406.

In the snapshot today, Kevin Rudd's cabinet is mentioned and the hope was to have time to note the developments (or non-developments) regarding puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet. But al-Maliki made big statements in April of 2006 about that cabinet being put together and about to be announced. Over and over. Missed deadlines for that announcement and then, finally, as May was winding down, announced his cabinet. He doesn't have a full cabinet currently and attempted to fill two spots today but, Reuters reports, was "thwarted" by memebers of Iraq's Parliament who boycotted today's session. Noureddin al-Hayyali is quoted stating, "These two ministerial nominations were imposed without political consensus and consulting other parliament blocs." They also note some members "boycotted the session over rules that would allow the two candidates to be approved by less than half the 275-member parliament." Those 'rules' are not rules. The rules are written into the Constitution. The 'rules' Reuters refers to were a move by al-Maliki to circumvent a process he knew he would most likely lose.

That's something to remember amidst as the waves of Operation Happy Talk come crashing into the shore. The escalation is ending as it was always known it would and, during that time, al-Maliki's precarious 'leadership' became even more iffy. What has been accomplished? Nothing. A lot of money tossed around to militias/thugs. Buying off support from this faction (armed faction) or that. A lot of Iraqis dead, a lot of foreign troops dead. And the escalation ends (as it was known it would) and al-Maliki's got nothing. He doesn't even have a full cabinet. He did when the escalation started.

Nothing was accomplished but people lost lives to prop up the puppet who doesn't have popluar support in Iraq. What was the point of the escalation?

It wasn't a 'plan,' it wasn't a new 'strategy'. It was more of the same. And things are no better than they were before. Nor will they be.

Some outlets may rush out their end of the month stories tomorrow, some may wait until Sunday. But notice what gets left out. Did you see paper's covering (today) the female bomber yesterday that wounded 7 US service members and five Iraqi civilians? The US military issued an announcement on that. It's in the snapshot for Wednesday. (Wrongly under "shootings," but it's in there.) Why wasn't it a big story in the morning papers Thursday?

The PEJ study (also covered in Wednesday's snapshot) should have led to many op-eds, many roundtables. Instead it's been greeted with silence. (The New York Times covered it by burying it in the business section.) It's real easy to sell 'improvements!' when you ignore reality.

Or maybe you just sell the myth of the 'great return' that wasn't. Or maybe you ignore the attacks on Iraqi officials. On those two topics, the New York Times gets credit for Alissa J. Rubin's article on the attacks and for Damien Cave's article on the myth of the returns. And that may be the saddest thing about the last few weeks. Without taking anything away from Rubin or Cave (both deserve praise for those articles), how sad is it that the Times -- which continues to sell the illegal war -- did some of the better reporting on Iraq? Ali al-Fadhily (at IPS) did (and does) some strong reporting. But is that really all there is? Those three? Rubin's article will probably be a footnote in many books years from now and Cave's will probably get a little more attention but, for the mainstream, that may be it in terms of anything produced in the last few weeks (from Iraq) that will live past the daily cycle (other than in terms of negative criticism). Independent media can point to IPS. And? Okay, shoe string budgets (although The Nation brags about making a profit -- too bad the money didn't go to hiring some stringers in Iraq), what about discussions of Iraq? List your own favorites. It will no doubt be a very small list.

And that's how the failure of the escalation gets sold as a 'success.'

Thursday, November 29, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, cholera is back in the news, some have hopes for Kevin Rudd but some do not, the US military announces a death, and more.

On November 15th Canada's Supreme Court announced they would not hear the appeals of US war resisters Following the refusal of the Canadian Supreme Cour to hear the appeals of US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey.

Geoffrey Millard: Do you think it's wise for US service members to take the option to go to Canada?

Susan Sarandon: I think if you conscience tells you that you don't want to fight, that this is an unjust war, there's a long tradition of refusing and resisting to fight and I think that really I just wish that there was more press about that as an alternative because I've run into so many people who -- who are in the position now and don't know what will happen if they refuse who are very frightened either to not go back or to go for the first time. On the train coming up here I spoke to a woman whose twenty-year-old brother was in ROTC he got called up and he's getting two weeks of training in Tacoma and being deployed in the 'surge' and he is just stunned. He married his girlfriend this weekend, from high school. He doesn't know what's going on and I said, 'Well maybe he shouldn't go?' She said, "Oh, he said he can't do that because he'd be thrown in prison and prison's terrible and blah, blah, blah

Geoffrey Millard: If you could say one thing to soldiers going to Canada what would it be?

Susan Sarandon: I would say, "God bless you. And, you know, I admire your courage and know that there are people here who -- who see this as an honorable thing and that I hope that you can reach out and make it known to other people who have these kinds of doubts and convictions to have the courage of their convictions and to refuse.

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis and NDP Immigration critic Olivia Chow butted heads over whether the committee should jump straight to the war resister issue, as Ms. Chow wanted, or whether the committee should first finish the work it started during the last session. Also, while Ms. Chow originally asked that the study focus on U.S. war resisters, specifically the two deserters facing extradition back to the United States, Mr. Karygiannis asked to open up the issue to deserting soldiers from other countries. After much debate, the committee agreed to look at Iraq war resisters and Iraqi refugees on Dec. 6 and 11. Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials are also slated to testify about undocumented workers on Dec. 13, while members spent four hours drafting a report on the loss of Canadian citizenship yesterday and will continue their work today and tomorrow.

Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):

In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.

Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower RdNelson, BC V1L3K6

If you are in Canada, you can utilize the contact info at War Resisters Support Campaign to let members of the Canadian Parliament know you support legislation allowing war resisters to stay in Canada. If you are in the United States (or elsewhere), you can utilize the contact info and/or forum at Courage to Resist. Public outcry didn't stop the illegal war from starting and public opposition has yet to end it. War resisters in Canada who have gone public are putting a great deal on the line. Use the links to show your support for them.

The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.

Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.

Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.

In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

In Australia, many hopes were raised with the Saturday election of Kevin Rudd to the post of Prime Minister. Rudd's call for pulling Australian combat troops out of Iraq was seen as "troops out of Iraq." Greg Barns (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) informed yesterday that "one of the first acts of Rudd's government will be to immediately withdraw the 550 Australian combat troops still in Iraq -- something that will no doubt irk in Bush." Less than a week since the election and already Australia's ABC reports that the supposed independent and elected ruler of Australia won't make a move without a nod from the US according to Robert McCallum (the US ambassador in Australia): "Mr McCallum says Mr Rudd has promised to speak to the United States before making any changes in Iraq." Meanwhile Brendan Nelson's whose 'rising star' status should have crashed and burned over his public statements regarding the late Jake Kovco is now the leader of the Liberal party -- the party John Howard, previous prime minister, hails from. Australia's Herald Sun reports Nelson is talking of Australia's 'responsibility' to the US and, as an after-thought, Iraq (link also offers video and Nelson's hair appears to have been set in homage to SNL's Coneheads). "The gloves are off now," the Herald Sun reports Rudd stating and notes he has announced his cabinet. How long did it take al-Maliki to announce his cabinet? Back to Rudd, Michael Fullilove (Los Angeles Times) expresses hope, "The results of the Australian election last weekend, however, may give pause to some in Washington: A social conservative, once described by President Bush as a 'man of steel,' was thrown out of office (and his own parliamentary seat) by a former diplomat who speaks Mandarin. On such issues as climate change and the war on terror, ousted Prime Minister John Howard was Bush's most faithful international supporter. After the inglorious departures of Britain's Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, Bush and Howard were the last men standing of the Western leaders who invaded Iraq. Now Howard too is gone. It's as if the Sundance Kid charged alone into the rifles of the Bolivian army, leaving Butch Cassidy fiddling with his six-shooter."

As if that image of the US government isn't bad enough, AP reports that the US State Department's John Bellinger III says the US needs 'clarification' on the Geneva Conventions (try remedial lessons in it) and claims that Bilal Hussein can be imprisoned (19 months and counting) because "his understanding was that American forces were operating under an international mandate that allows for the detention of people who might pose a security threat" but, as the AP points out, "The Geneva Conventions contain specific references to the protection of journalists operating in war zones, including that they be treated as civilians unless they take part in hostilities." Bilal is the AP photographer -- Pulitzer Prize winning photographer who has been held since April 12, 2006. Free Bilal is a resource where you can find out more and sign a petition in support of him. As Ruth noted earlier this week, Bilal was the topic on NPR's All Things Considered Monday as Associated Press CEO and president Tom Curley spoke with Robert Siegel. Curley explained that they still didn't know what the charges would be but were told they might find out later this week. Curley reviewed how the AP's own investigation found nothing trouble. Not stated but it should be noted, the US has tried this in the press before and their charges have fallen apart under scrutiny. Siegel asked if Bilal was basically being punished for doing his job and Curley replied, "We can't find any other reason." Daryl Lang (Photo District News) reports the US military announced today that they will "present evidence against" Bilal on December 9th. The 'trial' would take place in an Iraqi 'court.' Curley has [PDF format] written a letter to puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki which opens with: "I write to ask your help in assuring that justice is done in the case of Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen and photographer for The Associated press who has been detained by the United States military since April 12, 2006. They say they suspect him of aiding terrorists. U.S. military officials have made many accusations against Mr. Hussein, although they have provided no evidence to support them. AP has conducted its own investigation of every specific allegation and has found them all to be either not credible or absolutely false. We believe the real reason for Mr. Hussein's detention and incarceration for 19 months without charges is that he produced images of conflict in Anbar Province which the military did not want the citizens of Iraq and the United States to see." In addition, Joe Strupp (Editor & Publisher) reports that "MIlitary Reporters and Editors became the latest group Wednesday to weigh in on the controversy regarding Associated Press Photographer Bilal Hussein, who is facing unspecified terrorist charges in Iraq." The letter opens with: "It could happen, we fear, to any journalist covering the war in Iraq. A soldier confiscates your notes, cameras and gear, and takes you into custody. Once jailed you have no rights -- not to remain silent, to call a lawyer or see a judge. That was the fate of Bilal Hussein, an Associated Press photographer who was part of a team that wona Pulitzer Prize in 2005. He has been jailed for 19 months by the U.S. military. . . . We at Military Reporters & Editors wonder how this incident has been allowed to go on for so long. We also wonder if it could happen to other Iraqi journalists who have risked their lives to tell American and the world about life in Iraq. . . . Bilal Hussein's imprisonment is contrary to every notion of justice, fair play and the U.S. Constitution, which every member of America's military swears to uphold and defend." AP's page on Bilal is here.

While the US tries to railroad Bilal, it also tries to force through a permanent occupation of Iraq. Bully Boy and his puppet think they can by-pass the Iraqi parliament. From Monday's snapshot: "(Question: Who ratifies treaties in the United States? The Congress. One more aspect of 'democracy' that never got exported to Iraq.)" Today, Bruce Ackerman (Los Angeles Times) reminds Americans that "the Constitution requires congressional approval before the nation can commit itself to the sweeping political, economic and military relationship contemplated by the 'declaration of principles' signed by Bush and Maliki to kick off the negotiations. U.S. legislative approval can come in two forms: Either two-thirds of the Senate can vote for a treaty under Article II of the Constitution, or a simple majority of both houses can authorize the agreement under Article I. But there is no constitutional provision or precedent authorizing this new form of Bush unilateralism."

In this morning's papers, Cara Buckley (New York Times) is one of the few to report from Iraq. Buckley notes that the Wednesday bused and bought refugees from Syria that came back to Iraq in "20 busloads" with a "government spokesman" hailing the return of 800 while the city coucil says it was more like 200 and cites Dana Graber Ladek (International Organization for Migration) explaining that the those returning in the trickle "have discovered squatters living in their homes". Buckley also notes the cholera outbrak ("with 101 new cases reported in recent weeks") and notes issues of sewage. CNN reports that UNICEF is warning there may be "a larger outbreak" of the disease in Iraq and quotes UNICEF's Claire Hajaj explaining, "While national caseloads are declining, we are increasingly concerned about a possible outbreak in Baghdad. The capital accounts for 70 percent all new cases and is now up to 101 cases, the vast majority reported in the past three weeks."

In other dangers on the ground in illegal war . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing this morning which left six people wounded, another that left five wounded, a Baquba mortar attack on a police station that left two police officers wounded, an Al-Muqdadiyah mortar attack that wounded two, an Al-Salam mortar attack that claimed 12 lives and left twenty-five wounded, a Baquba roadside bombing that left two wounded and a roadside bombing outside Bamo village which claimed the lives of 2 Iraqis ("one officer and a soldier"). And in what may or may not be an attempted attack on an official. Reuters reports 2 car bombs were found ("and detonated") "in the Baghdad office complex of the leader of the country's main Sunni Arab bloc" -- Adnan al-Dulaimi. In addition, Reuters reports two Baghdad roadside bombings near mini-buses that left eleven people injured and a Mosul car bombing that left two police officers wounded. CNN notes that the US military announced today that "a team of U.S. Apache helicopters fired 30 mm cannon and Hellfire missiles at a house from which insurgents attacked a coalition convoy on Tuesday. Three insurgnets were killed". They hope three 'insurgents' were killed. The actual news it the US military fired on a home and killed three. At this point the three dead are not known to have been anything other than civiliains.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba attack on Hamid Ibrahim ("the head of Hibhib police) that wounded two of his bodyguards and, in another attack targeting officials, the son of Sheikh Dhamim Al-Ajeel was shot dead in Salahuddin and, in another attack targeting officials, Amar Mohammed Al-Hamadani ("Hawijah district mayor"), was injured 1 of his bodyguards killed in an attack in Hawijah. Reuters notes that yesterday "the mayor of a district in central Tikrit" was shot dead and (also yesterday) "Five bodyguards who work for Iraq's acting minister for tourism and antiquities were wounded when Iraqi soldiers opened fire on their convoy in western Baghdad on Wednesday, the ministry said. The minister was not in the convoy and the incident was under investigation."

Today the US military announced: "Small-arms fire killed one Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier in a western section of the Iraqi capital Nov. 28."

Turning to US politics, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes, "Former President Bill Clinton is under scrutiny for claiming he opposed the Iraq war 'from the beginning.' Clinton made the claim Tuesday while campaigning for his wife Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa. But a look at Clinton's public statements from 2002-on reveal he never unequivocally opposed the war and at times voiced nuanced approval. In March 2003, Clinton criticized France for opposing the invasion and defended British Prime Minister Tony Blair for taking part. Meanwhile a former senior administration official is now claiming White House officials personally briefed Clinton in the lead-up to war and that Clinton voiced his support. The official, Hillary Mann Leverett is the former White House director of Persian Gulf affairs. She says she was 'shocked' and 'astonished' at Clinton's claim to oppose the war. Leverett says former administration official Elliot Abrams emerged from one pre-war meeting 'glowing' after Clinton promised he would publicly support an Iraq invasion." While it is hard to believe anyone would ever describe Elliot Abrams as "glowing," Tom Baldwin (Times of London) quotes Bill Clinton's spokesperson Jay Carson stating, "As he said before the war and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs."

Turning to a topic noted in Monday and Tuesday's snapshot. Dia al-Kawwaz stated that 11 of his relatives had been murdered by Shi'ites on Sunday and that during a wake Tuesday, there was another attack. Late yesterday, his mother and other family members appeared on a US funded Iraqi channel to maintain that was not true. Reports Without Borders quickly issued a statement. Too quickly, some might argue since we've had one set of charges (from Dia al-Kawwaz) and another set of charges (from his mother and others) with no investigation. Dia al-Kawwaz may very well be sick enough to state make up the death of 11 members of his family. On the other hand, he may have made up nothing. If the latter is true, 11 members of his family may have been killed or he may have been told 11 members died as some sort of a cruel trick. Since nothing more is known at this point then he says ___ and others say ___, since nothing's been verified, maybe it's a bit early to beat him up? Maybe Reporters Without Borders should have stuck with their original call for an investigation into the events because that's the only way what did or did not happen -- and how -- will be known.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.